The Washington Post Thursday identified the two supervisors who have been forced out of the agency. Supervisor David Randall Chaney, 48, has been allowed to retire, while Greg Stokes, the assistant special agent in charge of the K-9 division, has been fired with cause. A third low-level officer has resigned his post.

[Even Obama's personal chef was fired?]

Chaney will soon be cashing in on a pension worth between $47,000 and $61,000 per year, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

Despite the scandal, it will be nearly impossible to prevent him from collecting on the lucrative sum, according to Michael Spekter, an attorney specializing in defending federal benefit packages.

“Even if you’re fired for misconduct, unless you are found guilty of treason, you can get your retirement benefits that you’ve earned through your years of public service,” he said. “They don’t dock your pensions.”

Spekter has represented hundreds of federal employees during his 30-year career and has never seen a worker lose his pension.

"Protecting the president isn't an essential core function of government."

Figures you didn't get it (or, more likely, are pretending not to in order to rattle off some snark). Of course protecting the President is. But Althouse's question asks what the episode says about government's competancy. Because they are seriously challenged in this regard, the less they do the better.

Amidst all the puritan clutter in Amerika, you just need to keep repeating to yourself:

1. sex and drinking are desirable and good.

2. marriage and breeding are bad.

We haven't yet seen a cogent argument as to why off-duty legal behavior by SS guys is bad.

Some say it's because of the possibility of compromising security or secrecy. That would imply that SS guys also couldn't sleep with their own wives while off-duty. Not to mention that Obama couldn't sleep with Michele without compromising secrecy and security.

Maybe we should set up a system of vetting hookers for Security Clearances so that guys away from home and off-duty can engage in legal conduct that doesn't compromise national security or the safety of the president. Wasn't that what General Hooker started during the Civil War?

if I was a narco-terrorist looking to attack POTUS, it would be much easier to plant an IED or bio-weapon amoung the advance team.

And how would that facilitate an attack on the president? Does the advance team even stay in the country when the president arrives? I bet you don't even know, and finding out probably isn't easy.

One thing I do know for certain. I knew a woman (USAF) who was applying to be one of the POTUS' personal physicians. She was told that while she was the president's physician (I think it is a two or three year tour) she would not be allowed to consume any alcohol at all (on or off duty--which of course she would never actually be "off duty"). I would assume there is a similar restriction on the president's personal security detail.

""If the federal government can’t keep the President’s bodyguards from drinking and whoring on duty...""

Ask yourself: what does the government do better than the private sector? I would suspect that even the out and out liberals/progressives here like Freder and Andy would have a hard time documenting much, if anything.

It is inevitable that governments are going to do most everything they attempt badly. They most often provide shoddy work at exorbitant prices.

My theory is that there are a couple of interacting causes to this. First, and foremost, governments don't have a bottom line. Instead, they invariably have multiple, often conflicting, aspirational goals, but no hard metrics to measure their success or failure. And, the fact that they have multiple mandates and goals allows their management to essentially pick and choose many times which is most important.

I am thinking, for example, of NASA now having as one of its goals outreach to the 3rd world and/or Islam. So what if we don't ever, as a species, get off the surface of this planet, as long as Muslim kids in Yemen feel good about themselves. I know that that example is ridiculous, but not really that outrageous. We had Fannie and Freddie self-exploding by taking on garbage debt in order to make the housing market more "fair" to minorities. Never mind what it cost to clean up the mess, it was for a good cause.

Businesses have fairly stark bottom lines - if you don't satisfy your customers, you don't make sales, and if you don't make sales, or the cost of your sales is too high, you are out of business. With the government, they just explain why they need more money, since whatever you gave them before wasn't enough.

Another facet is that of the type of people who are attracted to government work. Most typically, that means that they put security over potential for top pay. In other words, risk adverse.

But, one of the things that was interesting to me when I worked for different governments was that people often went into government work idealistically and full of dedication and optimism. And, then, awhile later, you find that many of those still working for the government are cynical, lazy, and much more worried about their own retirement, leisure, etc. than actually doing what they were hired to do. What happened?

Partly, many of the idealistic ones are run off. I got canned at the end of my probationary period at one job because I was doing more audits than 20 year veterans who weren't letting their government jobs interfere with their real jobs on the side. In another case, this was done through bumping rights - the deadwood grabbed the jobs of the productive employees when it downsized through their seniority. And, people just get cynical. But, mostly, I think that idealism and government service just don't go together long run.

How can Obama's administration be blamed for horney SS agents, did he hand pick them?

No - but at some level, he picked their bosses.

This isn't a good example - Fast and Furious would probably be better. But, Obama has long seemed to claim that he has no control over the federal bureaucracy. But, if he doesn't, then who does? And, what did we hire him for?

If the government bureaucrats (which, in this case, include those SS agents) can do essentially whatever they want, on our dime, then why do we provide the President with that nice house, vacation retreat, 2 747s (plus smaller executive jets for his family's travels without him), helicopters, personal body guards, personal body servants, chefs, etc.?

This, BTW, is part of Romney's message that his campaign seems to be firming up - that Obama is a nice guy, but running the government is just beyond him. He tries hard, but just doesn't have the training and experience to get it under control. (And, arguably, not the interest - but they aren't going to say that).

Ask yourself: what does the government do better than the private sector? I would suspect that even the out and out liberals/progressives here like Freder and Andy would have a hard time documenting much, if anything.

No, you don't understand Bruce, Social Security is the most successful and popular program of all time!!!

Oh, please. All this faux "I'm shocked!" moralizing about Secret Service agents drinking and whoring around. What? Does anyone believe these guys are Boy Scouts?

The problem is not that they're drinking and whoring around when they're off duty, it's that they would try to welsh on a payment to one of the women whose services they had procured. That shows their low character far more than their carousing itself.

@jimbino I don't think their wives and children travel with them to foreign countries. If they are home in Virginia, they can whore around all they like - who cares? If they are overseas on a mission, they are not off duty.

A very bad perspective by Reynolds. The personnel involved were OFF_DUTY and engaged in LEGAL activities in Columbia.

If Glenn is arguing that Federal employers should regulate behavior of off-duty personnel according to the moral dictates of a black race card playing lesbian supervisor (Paula Reid), or a Fundie supervisor (each day in the Green Zone in Iraq in Ministry of Economic development started with obligatory Christian prayer until Iraqis said WTF??) - fine!!!

Then private employers should have the right to control the behavior or private sector employees away from the workplace.

hatboy is beyond chutzpah. He not only takes for granted all the goods and services corporations provide his worthless hide, he mocks the employees of those corporations as drunken johns. hatboy epitomizes the freeriding arrogant ignoramus mentality that normally is marginalized, but occasionally, as in now, holds the reins of power and leads inevitably to ruination.

I don't blame Obama, and I doubt that the bad behavior started with his administration, but those bits aren't relevant to the point being made, that gigantic governments (and gigantic bureaucracies in general to a lesser extent) are generally horribly incompetent.

The secret service has declared they need x number of hotel rooms, x number of advance people, and x amount of time in order to keep the president safe and we aren't supposed to ask any questions.

So they end up spending that time drinking and whoring and spending our money, and we aren't supposed to ask any questions.

Sorry, our government is too broke to fund a non-stop party on the backs of the taxpayer. If these guys have time to pick up whores, they aren't busy enough to justify the expense of having them there.

Are you saying that SS guards can't sleep with their own wives in their hotel rooms the day before they have to guard the president? Can they not entertain their own children?

What I'm saying, jimbino, old pal, is that not only are they vetted, but their wives and children are vetted too. If any of them fail, they do not become SS agents. The agnets and their families are also periodically re-vetted, and if any of them fail to pass subsequent security and background clearances, then - bye bye.

Synova said..."We haven't yet seen a cogent argument as to why off-duty legal behavior by SS guys is bad."

This.

I swear... I'm about as prudish as it gets, but I simply don't understand the outrage.

========================I agree.

Conservatives that want employers given the freedom to control employee behavior away from the workplace are marching arm-in-arm with the race-card wielding black lesbian that blew this up into a capital case for her own purposes.

The argument is that we the general masses in the public - WANT employers that have employees doing really, really important jobs like being cops, building jet engines, caring for patients, US Marines...to control all undesirable off duty behavior.

Some advance the "Role Model argument" - that while we all knew baseball players were using steroids..we have to pretend to be Shocked! and punish them severely when someone forces the situation where they can't be ignored. While ignoring rampant steroid use in the NFL. See- we must - because baseball players are Role Models for the tykes! Its all about the children! The children!

When sanity returns, and the black lesbian backstabber of her colleagues has been rewarded enough by feminists and conservatives as a hero - we will reconsider.

Why was there a law barring homosexuals from sensitive Federal jobs? The argument was that because the law called for firing homos, they were vulnerable to blackmail by foreign agents who threatened to tell on them. So it was important to weed out any homos before they could be threatened by being fired.

Now we have feminist and conservative forces that wish to add off-duty drinking, whoring, gambling, insulting the Prophet, adultery as firable offenses.

Shortly after the society has agreed that perhaps it was best to end the anti-gay policy of "Zero tolerance, find them and fire them" of homos. As that firing threat..not being homosexual in and of itself...made them vulnerable to blackmail.So we went with de facto "Don't ask, don't tell" from the 60s to the 90s, when that was replaced with official "don't ask don't tell".

Now the same idiots are back..this time joining with feminists in wanting a new Moral Code to live by or be fired by.

And yes, Hatboy is thinking clearer than the Zero Tolerance crowd here...

We should turn over all government responsibilities to private corporations, which have never had a problem with employees drinking and whoring while they should be working.

Are you really this stupid? The only choices for who controls your life is government bureaucrats or corporate employees? Do you not take any responsibility for your own life or is everything everyone else's fault?

As if they weren't whoring and drinking during the Bush administration, they simply weren't caught.

Are you really this stupid too? No one is saying it's okay for the GOP to do this, but not the dems. The point is that why would you give anyone power over you if they can't keep their own house in order?

Your argument is that it's okay for Obama to have a totally screwed up administration because Bush did too? Really?

I see now, Allie, you're just a dishonest hack. "Well I don't have any evidence for my accusations, but I really, really want it to be true, so I'm going to say it's true despite not having any evidence whatsoever, except for my standard liberal sensibilities, which says that all non-democrats are evil." Ha!

Your tactics are to change the subject. You recognize what a political disaster Obama is, so to keep attention from focusing on him, you throw out red herrings hoping people will take the bait.

Should every supervisor of any group of employees (doing a really important job) be a morally rigid teetoller from the Muslim, Mormon, Religious Right faith, or feminist faith?Is it for the best that employees are regulated by a moral code they follow off work hours?

In the 19th Century, many factory towns, where they had employees making really vital things society counted on - had moral codes that applied to all. Workers could be fired for gambling. For failing to attend Sunday church services. For adultery.The argument was that the wise employer had a right to do so, so that the best shoe or steam locomotive part could be made..coal could be mined ..and more safely ..free of worker distraction and weariness from carousing away from the factory. "Dry" company towns were de jure. Not just for workers, but if a family member indulged, the worker could be fired for that. Or being Catholic, secretly.Companies employed spies and informants to monitor the workforce.

Should every supervisor of any group of employees (doing a really important job) be a morally rigid teetoller from the Muslim, Mormon, Religious Right faith, or feminist faith?No.Is it for the best that employees are regulated by a moral code they follow off work hours?For some very important and/or dangerous jobs, yes.

Humans are quite capable of delaying gratification. In many cases, virtually indefinitely.

Set the standards, make the consequences of breaking the standards clear, and be consistent.

It works. People are responsible for their actions. Including failure to live up to these relatively easy standards of no whoring around.

Heck, no standard I've ever seen for any job is more than mildly difficult.

Do the right thing. Act with integrity. I know those concepts are like garlic and kryptonite to liberals, but there's no reason why everyone should lower themselves to the despicable standard of John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, et al.

It's funny because there are all sorts of things wrong with these preening, couch fainting comments, not the least of which is the preening couch faintyness.

Ha. But though the dumbness of Instapundit's quote runs myriad levels deep, some are uniquely conspicuous. One of which involves the fact that the SS is not like a department of a given administration. To treat what a few SS agents do as part of Obama's "policy" is really very embarrassing.

Robert cook has it correct. Have you seen this woman the cheapskate tried to pay $30 for the entire night instead of her $800 fee!! If you could get women like this for $30 the streets of Colombian would be filled w/ Asian and US men on sex tours.

A retired SS agent from Chicago blew the whistle on this debauchery years ago and was ostracized. Folks blaming Obama, Bush, etc. are talking out of their asses. This is the SS culture and anyone who knows Fed law enforcement knows it.

Nick, my point was that any administration could've and probably did have this happening, Bush, Clinton, maybe all the way back to Eisenhower. As several commenters said, these guys aren't boyscouts, probably never were.

Excuse me? Is the whole federal government supposed to be spending all it's time watching the Secret Service?

Try not to be dense. The reality is that all people are flawed. These actions, as well as the daily barrage we get about corrupt everyone, confirm this, yet lefties want to give government officials ever more power over their own lives, all while abrogating personal responsibility. It's really not rocket science, but go ahead and obtuse if it makes you feel better about giving more power to the power mad.

Is the advance team actually on duty at night? I suspect not. Insty - and others - seem Hellbent on expanding the scope of the story. It may be that Bodyguards (as opposed to the advance team) engage in this activity as well (I suspect they do). But while on duty? Doubtful.

I think it's a bad idea that they engage with Prostitutes: who knows who the John is, and how much the young ladies can learn. Enemies have used women to get info out of men for a long long time.

I've never seen people so upset that citizens want their president well protected.

You can say you think something happened without proof, but you can't say it did. It is an insult to every other Secret Service agent who did not do it. Having no proof of something is actually a very good reason to think that that thing did not happen.

It's... a pretty basic theory. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you need a stronger argument than "They're all like that!"

I'm reading the post. Did you? Or did you just ignore it so you could go into your "ever more power" shtick?

Yes, I'm reading the post. It ends with "how likely is it to be able to run anything competently?" In other words, idiots like you see this type of corruption all the time, yet still call for government officials to run ever more of our lives (like Obamacare) and think it will be done competently.

harrogate said...Fen, if by "clutching my pearls" you mean laughing my ass off at the disingenuous comments by you and your brethren droolers, then yes============It is a sad day indeed when Hatboy and Harrowgate join the commonsense brigade like DBQ and Synova and me in laughing at Shocked! and Outraged! conservatives clutching pearls - in backing the supervisoring black lesbian's power play against evil white men "frolicking" off duty.

Perhaps it is the moralistic Frothy Santorum-like control freak tendencies the far Right joins the far Left (with their own idea ofa forced moral code others should live by) - in wanting.

We see some conservatives arguing the J Edgar Hoover line - that the Secret Service should be like Hoovers 1950s agents - perhaps ineffective against Communists and the mob from an inability to infiltrate - but role models of total moral rectitude on and off-duty because "their job is so vital".

Also, there are rules, if I recall correctly, against hiring prostitutes. Specifically in countries that engage in trafficking underage women. Even without gasping that extramarital affairs are bad -- there's a whole host of reasons that we should be glad these Secret Service agents will need to be looking for a new job.

First and foremost, your outrage is the most faked. You can't even give any evidence that what you want to be outraged about under Bush even occurred.

And of course it's an attack on Obama. It's also an attack on all government officials. It clearly states "If the federal government can’t keep the President’s bodyguards from drinking and whoring on duty how likely is it to be able to run anything competently?" Notice no name appears anywhere in the blog post.

The post notes that corruption and incompetence occurs everywhere, and yet fools like you still call for an ever expanding government with ever more power over our lives. You see the corruption and incompetence, yet it doesn't mean anything to you. All you think is "Obama is my guy, so I'll support him no matter what." Glenn Reynolds understands the incompetence and corruption of all government officials and rails against them all (see Instapundit blog posts Jan 2001-Jan 2009). Never does he say, "Well it's okay for this administration to be totally corrupt because others were too" and I have never found any post on Instapundit that says "I don't have evidence of wrong doing, but I'm going to act as if there were."

AllieOop said...Nick, my point was that any administration could've and probably did have this happening, Bush, Clinton, maybe all the way back to Eisenhower. As several commenters said, these guys aren't boyscouts, probably never were.

So it's your contention that we are not to expect a certain degree of professionalism in our public employees? Or, a modicum of maturity? Especially since their job is to protect the President?Represent the United States when they're abroad?No?

I worked for a guy once that was CIA. The real kind, not the Valerie Plame type. He would spend months in foreign countries, doing CIA stuff. Never said what, just stuff. When he came home it was to do one thing...decompress. And he did that by drinking. As an alcoholic I know drinking, but this guy made me look like a piker. He would start as soon as his feet hit the floor, literally. Polish of a 6 pack by noon, and 12 by quitting time. I never knew how much he drank while I was gone, but his garbage cans were almost exclusively filled with cans, bottles, and cardboard boxes that once held liquor.

Knew a couple undercover cops, and they were the same way.

These guys ain't "plaster saints" to quote Kipling. I admit I was surprised that these guys were doing it, but I shouldn't have been. They're men, there are good ones and bad ones, like every facet of our society.

If the perp's had wives, I feel sorry for them.

Hollywood has convinced a lot of us that Seals, and SS agents, and all these action heroes are heroes. Their men doing a job. Some do it well, some not.

All our "heroes" have feet of clay.

You want a hero, look at the father who works 2 jobs to give his kids a little more. The mom who drives all over town like a taxi service for her kids, comes home makes her husband dinner, and then cleans up the mess.

We're surrounded by heroes and we don't see it.

The only thing I find unpalatable about this whole incident is the hubris of denying what the going rate for that woman was. If it was $800 a night, the guy should have paid, or done without. That he tried to flash his SS badge to make her go away?...That's what's disturbing.

Its funny too see all the prudes who have their panties in a bunch over nothing. The agents didn't break any laws, compromise the safety of anyone, and their are no indications that these agents were subject to being blackmailed. Most were not even married (and obviously not susceptible to being blackmailed). This scandal has legs ONLY because it is a sex scandal and the prudes get furious when others (not as prudish as they) go out and have some fun. Only in America would people get upset over the actions of these agents while off duty. Very sad that Americans are still so prudish.And if Secret Service has a job sooo important only Muslims, Mormons, teetolling religious right and lesbian zealots should do it...fine. Live with that bunch.

Or perhaps treat the agents to some serious paternalistic oversight. Agents will be considered On-Duty 24/7/365 (along with other Americans who have safety-related and national security related jobs). Those people will be monitored by informants and supervisors 24/7/365. While overseas, they will be put in barracks with bed checks and breathylizer testing. Not just they, but their spouses will be surveilled to check on any adultery, gambling...Besides obeying the law...the can also obey an extra-legal moral code. Other than flying a plane into a building - Mohammed Atta was such an exemplar.Unfortunately, with Atta dead - reactionary conservatives and femninists can look to Rick Santorum. He would be a natural to appoint to head the effort to craft the the New Order Moral Code - of getting all such employees and their families to the Highest Moral Standard.

Well Rocketeer I have friends who are current and former FBI, ATF and DEA agents. All fed law enforecement are technically on duty no matter where they are 24/7. They're supposed to carry their firearm @ all times. The reality is the have lives; they drink, birdog, party, etc. and they do all the things guys do. I only know a couple female ATF agents and they are more reserved then the men but they consider themselves off duty when they're home, out shopping, having a drink, etc. But they all realize technically they're always on duty.

Allie, I understand your point. It's just that they're are plenty of things presidents are responsible for in reality, this isn't one of them and the Bush, Obama, yada yada back and forth is wasted energy.

Your story of the CIA agent rings sadly true. One reason I never pointed my business towards Intel work (and I had multiple opportunities) is because I disliked that world's subculture so intensely.

You were either in it, or you were out. If you were in it, all too often failure was overlooked. And if you were outside of it, your criticism could be safely ignored.

In 1979 I was told by a White Russian emigre' that the Soviet Union would fall within ten years. I scoffed. Our CIA, after spending billions of our dollars to monitor their prime mission, discovered that the Soviet Union had fallen when they went out in their house shoes & robes to pick up the Washington Post & read Dusko Doder's reports from Moscow.

interesting comment thread--I dont doubt that the Secret Service agents are human beings and subject to human failings. And I think there is a certain amount of evidence they covered for JFK when he was bangin east german spies and anything else he could bang. His bad back notwithstanding JFK was apparently a lusty bastard.

All of that said, we ultimately rely on some sense of integrity in our public organizations to do their job--and protecting the president, it seems to me is quite an important job.

As freeman hunt points out this is not something that Mr Obama is complicit in. It is not his fault--but ultimately it goes to the larger issue of responsibility--and in that sense the Secret Service agents fucked up very badly. And to Glen Reynold's point: if the federal government cannot do something like protect the president, what else can we trust them for? Very little, it seems to me.

Your claim that "there most certainly are federal employment requirements for some positions barring engaging in any of them" is erroneous.

Nobody, even Obama, may place unconstitutional conditions on an employee. He may not, for example, require that the employee be circumcised, attend church, refrain from medical attention or sex, pissing and crapping.

At most, he may place reasonable demands on an employee that relate to his duties, and those have to be imposed in ways that do not violate natural, human and equal rights.

An employee has duties only when he is on-duty, by definition.

If Obama wants to claim that the SS guards are on duty 24/7, fine, but that means no booze, no sex, no visitors, including wives and children. Then, of course, he will have to pay them overtime and even double-time.

Furthermore, I want to see the rule that specifies when the SS guards are "on-duty" and "off-duty."

interesting comment thread--I dont doubt that the Secret Service agents are human beings and subject to human failings. And I think there is a certain amount of evidence they covered for JFK when he was bangin east german spies and anything else he could bang. His bad back notwithstanding JFK was apparently a lusty bastard.

All of that said, we ultimately rely on some sense of integrity in our public organizations to do their job--and protecting the president, it seems to me is quite an important job.

As freeman hunt points out this is not something that Mr Obama is complicit in. It is not his fault--but ultimately it goes to the larger issue of responsibility--and in that sense the Secret Service agents fucked up very badly. And to Glen Reynold's point: if the federal government cannot do something like protect the president, what else can we trust them for? Very little, it seems to me.

================The point of having a TS or above security clearance, or just a secret-level security clearance is the need to have one to do a particular job and being able to demonstrate that you are reliable and will not spill the beans.

It is not to lather up some Taliban-style moral code on each person as a prerequisite to show reliability and be able to keep the faith.

Again, why did we get rid of the rules that any homo uncovered in government should be fired? Because we found the "rules" made any detected homosexual vulnerable to blackmail.

And if you limit your employment candidates to a narrow and atypical part of the population where you value their off-duty behavior more than results - you end up with Hoover's FBI boy scouts. Absolutely ineffectual against the mob and other organized crime, insular mentality, poor at counterespionage, less concerned with the job than appearances.

This is yet another mass herd mill about. A stupid mob in a moralistic slaver backing the black lesbian supervisor's backstabbing & treachery...Another lynch mob. Like the mob that was baying for George Zimmerman's head because it Just-Felt-So-Good to be morally correct and wanting little Trayvon's murderer to pay.

As for high standards...if fornicating is to be a firable offense in the New Moral Order that feminists and Santorum wannabes want for anyone with a Really Important Job..Then we should have impeached FDR, Eisenhower, half the soldiers who ever were on the Joint Chief of Staff, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Clinton.

I'm reading the post. Did you? Or did you just ignore it so you could go into your "ever more power" shtick?

"Yes, I'm reading the post. It ends with "how likely is it to be able to run anything competently?" In other words, idiots like you see this type of corruption all the time, yet still call for government officials to run ever more of our lives (like Obamacare) and think it will be done competently."

Yep. It's your "ever more power" stick.

I understood the post perfectly well. It's implying that because of this incident the (current) government can't and won't do anything right.

Folks have sex with willing partners of their own choosing do not "fall short" of any legitimate rules any more than Blacks, gays and others fell short of oppressive Puritan rules in the past.

Yes, I well remember those oppressive Puritan rules against being Black.

Sex is a natural function, like pissing, farting and crapping. I suppose SS guards should be censured for legal pissing, farting and crapping while off-duty?

Only if the crapping, pissing, and farting involves coprophilic sex-play with a prostitute.

Some people don't seem to get the point here. People with security clearances, who know stuff like, oh, say, the POTUS's exact itinerary for the next few days, are expected not to put themselves in positions where they can be blackmailed, blurt something out because they're too drunk/stoned to know what the hell they're doing, or both.

This is not Puritanism, just common sense. If you're providing security to the POTUS, a trip to Latin America is not a "Cool! All the high-class exotic pussy you can eat, and all the high-class exotic cocktails you can drink!" junket. It's supposed to be work, and exceedingly demanding work at that.

And if a 21-man "advance team" is really so bored that it can't find anything to do but get drunk and then laid (or laid and then drunk), might I suggest that the team should've been rather smaller? And maybe, even, more selective?

C4: as a former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a CTSA clearance including several specific code word clearances, I can assure that I, and the men and women I served with never violated that trust.

WW II in Europe gave us a good example of an existential struggle between countries with very different leaders.

On the one side, the two leaders were big boozers, smokers and meat-eaters, and the Amerikan one was a notorious womanizer and adulterer. On the other side, the leader was faithful, abstemious, vegetarian and treated his dog well.

As Lincoln said about Grant: "Find out what brand of whiskey he's drinking and send a case of it to the other generals."

"Some people don't seem to get the point here. People with security clearances, who know stuff like, oh, say, the POTUS's exact itinerary for the next few days, are expected not to put themselves in positions where they can be blackmailed, blurt something out because they're too drunk/stoned to know what the hell they're doing, or both."

Blackmail only works if it's something that will ruin your career... and this shouldn't.

And I don't know that anyone was so drunk or stoned or anything to be blurting secrets. Were they?

I'm as prudish about security clearances (having held a TS, not that this is particularly remarkable) as I am prudish about sex. And I just do not get where this is something more than an eye roll or a wrist slap.

If Obama wants to claim that the SS guards are on duty 24/7, fine, but that means no booze, no sex, no visitors, including wives and children. Then, of course, he will have to pay them overtime and even double-time.

Nonsense. You think they're on an hourly wage scale? They're on call 24/7 in the way a GP doctor or a police officer or a firefighter is on call 24/7. S/he isn't forbidden from having sex, or drinking, or sleeping for that matter, but if called (whatever hour of the day or night) is expected to be available and sufficiently sober to be able to work rapidly and well. That's the job.

"And if a 21-man "advance team" is really so bored that it can't find anything to do but get drunk and then laid (or laid and then drunk), might I suggest that the team should've been rather smaller? And maybe, even, more selective?"

It may well be more people than they need, the number seems excessive to me, too, but no matter what their shift schedule they're going to have shifts *off*. And it doesn't take more than a few minutes to get drunk and laid, if we're going to be honest about that. Even people doing very important work need to eat, piss, sleep, and jack-off.

The point of having a TS or above security clearance, or just a secret-level security clearance is the need to have one to do a particular job and being able to demonstrate that you are reliable and will not spill the beans.

It is not to lather up some Taliban-style moral code on each person as a prerequisite to show reliability and be able to keep the faith.

The clearance does nothing to determine if you can do a job. Your supervisors do taht before they send you to be cleared.

And what do you mean by "spill the beans". Resist torture? Or, just not have a big mouth? I don't remember the "Pssst, Can you keep a secret" field on the form I filled out.

No, the reason people have a clearance is because they want to see if you already have bad habits, such as lying to them about little things that may turn into big things.

You bring up homosexuality. If you're openly gay, well okay then. But if you're a closet case --- bounce!

No secrets --- no lying. If you like whoring tell them about it. If you're a drunk, tell them about it.

But if they catch you lying about anything (A co-worker got fired over a misrepresentation on a apartment rental form!), you're out.

" S/he isn't forbidden from having sex, or drinking, or sleeping for that matter, but if called (whatever hour of the day or night) is expected to be available and sufficiently sober to be able to work rapidly and well. That's the job."

I missed the part where the SS guards in Cartagena were too drunk or sex-exhausted to oversee security for Obama. Please enlighten us.

Are you too young to remember the days when gays used to be fired from sensitive positions with the justification that they were subject to blackmail, even when they'd come out of the closet?

Nope. I remember the practice. And for closeted gays it made perfect sense, just it would for adulterers, alcoholics, drug addicts, embezzlers, and anyone else who had a secret that might be held over their heads.

Applied to "out" gays, it made much less sense. Still, there might be correlated secrets HIV status comes to mind. I can imagine a situation in which someone whose friends and co-workers all knew he was gay might nonetheless not want them also to know that he was HIV+. Or that he engaged in this or that particular practice. Or spent his off-time playing footsie with lawmakers in airport bathroom stalls.

Maybe it's just that I've been in the military and been stationed at Clark AB.

I profoundly respect the guys who have internal constraints when the moral crutch of social constraints are gone, and I utterly despise the weak-willed, but logically, unless you have a religious conviction that extra-marital sex is wrong, there simply isn't any reason not to pay some hookers and have a party.

I've come to terms with the reality that very few people other than myself *actually* think that people who aren't married shouldn't have sex with each other. Adultery *and* fornication being equally wrong. I understand that I'm nearly alone in thinking so.

Getting caught having parties is bad optics, as they say. I agree absolutely.

but logically, unless you have a religious conviction that extra-marital sex is wrong, there simply isn't any reason not to pay some hookers and have a party.

When you are on the taxpayer's dime and your actions reflect on your country, and a mistake endangers the people you serve, there is every reason in the world not to pay some hookers and have a party.

There is not a soul who can't go two weeks without sex and booze.They aren't on a paid vacation. Their bosses have sworn to us, the taxpayer, that this expense is vital. Instead, it's like we're paying for Spring Break.

I've come to terms with the reality that very few people other than myself *actually* think that people who aren't married shouldn't have sex with each other. Adultery *and* fornication being equally wrong. I understand that I'm nearly alone in thinking so.

Nobody is up in arms because some secret service guy is divorcing his wife back home because one of them had an affair.This isn't about simple adultery or unnaturally high standards.

It is perfectly legitimate for any employer- especially perhaps the US government- to have high standards regarding employee behavior on official business.If we want a government that is happy to pay for hundreds of people to party on our dime, staying in hotel rooms for weeks at a time while they pay for sex, let's at least put that on the table.America, this is what we do when we take your money in the name of keeping the president safe. We can't go into more detail than that, just that it is very important that all these people are away from home hiring hookers and staying in hotels. What do you think? Is it how you want to spend your money, America?

Synova, "The appearance of frivolity" is Orwellian. I do not condone the actions of these agents. But anyone who has not been in a men's sports locker room is ill equipped to truly understand this dynamic. And, as stated previously, anyone who doesn't know or understand the ol' boys culture of the SS is also just talking out of their ass. Just sayn'.

I profoundly respect the guys who have internal constraints when the moral crutch of social constraints are gone, and I utterly despise the weak-willed, but logically, unless you have a religious conviction that extra-marital sex is wrong, there simply isn't any reason not to pay some hookers and have a party.

Then how is it that I (and likely you as well) know so many people who haven't done that? How many men of your acquaintance would take a wife's visiting her parents out of town, say, as the occasion for a bacchanalia? How many wives would take a husband's business trip as an opportunity to say, "Cool! Let's have a lesbian orgy! Here's my credit card, and this is the best escort service in town ..."?

I do not think that most people  even most men  actually do this. I doubt very much that most men in highly responsible jobs devoted to keeping people alive do this.

And RogerJ, The SS have protected the Prez evidenced by the fact he is still the Prez. Although I would like a ballplayer I coach to be a good citizen, if he gets the job done on the field then that's what is important. Babe Ruth being one of many prime examples. This is not a perfect world...not even fucking close

In this case, the "bad optics" were furnished by supervisory agent Paula Reid, Michelle Obama's former head bodyguard, who decided to make this into a PR "cause celebre". Air what she deemed was dirty laundry and cast herself as the heroine of moral rectitude and true professionalism.

And alterted media..to not just the Secret Service, but also the "unprofessional military men" who liased with the Secret Service Advance team and were *shudder*...partying with them!!!!

This is a black lesbian woman who was publicly badmouthing the Secret Service in lawsuits and interviews before this as discriminating against and minimizing women and blacks. She played the race card for advancement before.

In 2004, she was promoted to a junior supervisory spot. Then pulled the race card to get into the White House as a supervisor of Michelle Obama's detail. Then used that clout to get promoted to head supervisor this year of one of the 3 top Secret Service offices...amidst much complaint that she lacked the experience and seniority to be vaulted over more qualified high-performing agents.

Columbia and the rolling of heads of people that are of a background that disses a newly appointed and empowered black female boss ---is all her "play". She is the queen bee, the highest ranking black lesbian in the Secret Service..and she has White House clout. The Secret Service clearly needs the optics of supporting the "blessings of Diversity" under Obama - and Mark Sullivan , the Director, knows that for now, it is best politically to back her lynching efforts.

What is infinitely amusing is the brain dead conservatives of the moral purity brigade - are lining up behind the power-thirsty bitch and backing her "play" as well.

The dangerous thing about folks like you is that you can envision defending a country that submits folks to full-DNA profiling as a condition of obtaining a job, apartment, or travel rights.

Where you got that I don't know, and since the easy retorts are all going to be construed as anti-gay slurs, I won't type them.

Can I envision "defending" such a country? I can. If it were in the condition of England during the Blitz, sure. You get rid of the people actively and daily trying to kill you first, then you get rid of the B.U.F. Or whatever our equivalent would be  though, to be honest, I haven't actually seen anyone advocating full DNA profiles for an apartment rental just yet.

If the drinks and hookers were going on the expense account, I'll be there with you complaining about it. Talk to me about money, then. I don't know where they were staying, but I think it's reasonable that an "advance team" stay in the hotel that the President is planning to stay in, or if the president is just passing through, a reasonably decent hotel. Considering the professional level they are at, their per diem is probably cushy. Is it too high? Maybe it is. I'm guessing this is an extremely well paying job. Does it take 21 people to do the advance work? That's a darn good question.

How many of these guys had to miss last Christmas with their families? Maybe they feel like there are some perks owed, to go with the sh*t.

Personally, I think that the president should stay home if he can possibly stay home.

Also... if the fellow figured he was entitled and could be belligerent and *cheap*, I can see that as an abuse of power that would bother me.

I don't have to approve of recreational choices to defend a person's right to recreate during his off-shift.

If the SS guys are over-paid and charging their personal vices to their expense accounts instead of their own bank accounts, then something ought to be done. If they're acting like privileged jerks, throwing their weight around, then reprimands are in order, or demotions or whatever.

And really, I do *get* "never off duty". I get "on call." If the President isn't even in the country, how drunk is over the line?

I'm not sure I'd rely on even that being true a decade or two out, but at the moment, yes.

And as a forlorn defender of the USPS, I think they do what they do about as well as it could be done for the price. (I'm referring to the delivery, not service actually inside a post office, which is almost uniformly nasty.)

They knew it. You know it. You both want to ignore and deny that, because it's convenient, but it doesn't change the FACT."

Really? How do you know this? Just because they were TDY does not mean they are on duty 24 hours a day. They were a logistical advance team. They brought in equipment and prepped it and then yes they are off duty for a while.

None of which excuses them bringing hookers to their rooms, but yeah, they were probably off duty when it happened. And if not, then they were even more stupid than we knows.

I'm just imagining the way our Secret Service blows into a foreign city, weeks in advance, with planes and cars and people. And we take over whole hotels and shut down foreign streets and drive everywhere in a 75-car caravan for the safety of the US president.

While the foreign governments know those guys doing all the security just spent weeks getting drunk and having hookers into their hotel rooms, and who knows who else they came into contact with.

The foreign leaders must laugh and laugh and laugh at the American people and the president, for thinking all of the inconvenience and expense actually means anything.

"Then how is it that I (and likely you as well) know so many people who haven't done that? How many men of your acquaintance would take a wife's visiting her parents out of town, say, as the occasion for a bacchanalia?"

All those people are still in *context*. They're in the context of a community that still views that behavior as shameful. They *still* have that social crutch for their morality.

Take that away and you find out just how few people (men, whatever) have any sort of independent moral sensibility at all.

Ask me how many men I know who routinely saw prostitutes in Thailand, or who set up housekeeping and kept a "mistress" while their wife and kids were home in the states. You could ask me how many I knew who *didn't*. And there were many who didn't.

What I saw the least of was men who continued to be accidentally moral, as I think most people tend to be in their communities. We're accidentally moral, for the most part, most of us because there is a lot of moral propping-up that happens. Social, moral crutches we depend upon.

I don't like to say that, hey, guys (people, whatever) in the military are so very immoral all the time, because they are no less moral, no less trustworthy, than anyone else who never has to actually chose to be moral but who is simply moral by default, for lack of opportunity. What virtue is there in default morality?

(Usefulness in it, certainly, particularly for the family who doesn't have to endure the fall-out of bad behavior. But not much virtue.)

All those people are still in *context*. They're in the context of a community that still views that behavior as shameful. They *still* have that social crutch for their morality.

I have no problem with the US government saying, you want to be a Secret Service agent? Then don't act shamefully.

I've lived overseas. The men I knew viewed the guys who took travel as a chance to cheat as really horrible people. I saw those guys get shunned.

Nobody is just moral by default. It is always a choice. You don't have more of a chance to cheat if you are in Thailand than if you are in Omaha. You just take that chance or you don't. The difference is, people give themselves an excuse because they tell themselves they aren't home. The vacation fantasy, life isn't really happening thing. It's the same thing that makes people think it's ok to sleep with a 12 year old Thai girl when they'd never troll the local middle school.

It's not ok just because you tell yourself it's ok and you're more than 500 miles away from your moral compass.

I see you're still deliberately missing the point. The post wasn't about just Obama. It was about idiot lefties who see this type of incompetence run rampant throughout government and still want these people in charge of everyone's retirement, medical coverage, housing, etc.

You're so busy sticking up for Obama, that you can't see that he's screwing up worse than Bush, who was also a train wreck on most things. You're stuck in the "us versus them" mindset and can't seem to understand that these "winners" as you've called them, also run medicare, medicaid, social security, the monstrosity of Obamacare, etc. You so desperately want democrats to be the good guys that you just refuse to understand that incompetence is rampant for them too.

C4: The point of having a TS or above security clearance, or just a secret-level security clearance is the need to have one to do a particular job and being able to demonstrate that you are reliable and will not spill the beans.

It is not to lather up some Taliban-style moral code on each person as a prerequisite to show reliability and be able to keep the faith.

Security protocols that you report all contact with foreign nationals = taliban-style moral code? Who knew.

Any other security clearance qualifiers you want to throw out the window?

If you're the kind of person who is really attracted to the idea of hiring hookers for two weeks while the wife stays home with the kids, then you're going to seek out the job that gives you that life style.

If you are the guy who dreams of the Thai mistress in your home while you're wife worries about you in North Carolina, you're going to seek out that life.

Those lives don't make it any easier for a good person to make those bad choices. People who want to make those choices just find those kinds of careers. They aren't going to seek out a lifestyle where there other people shun them for hiring hookers on the side.

I'm happy for the US Secret Service to not be an enabler of those people. The Secret Service needs to start justifying it's expenses.

Ken, the winners I'm referring to are the SS agents, last I looked they didn run any social safety net programs, like the ones you listed, lol.

As far as Obama goes, he's not one of my favorite people, but I won't engage in this charade of blaming anyone's administration or the federal government on some horney SS agents, gone drinking and whoring.

My biggest concern is the issue of security and what could possibly have been jeopardized by virtue of this kind of behavior.

That's one of my issues.

But my other issue is this: if it didn't jeopardize security, what does that tell us? How many people and hotel rooms do we pay for in any given city if we can have over a dozen of them get drunk and hang out with hookers- and it doesn't affect security one bit?

"It's not ok just because you tell yourself it's ok and you're more than 500 miles away from your moral compass."

I agree it's not OK. And I did say that I despise (I used the word despise in a non-hyperbolic way) those who screw around. Being away from your moral compass isn't an excuse, but it is going to make clear if you've got a moral compass of your own or not.

I think that the majority of people don't.

Doesn't make it okay. Just means they're weak-willed or self-indulgent.

But that's MY opinion. And when we, as a society, start to actually care if someone cheats on his wife *at home* then I can see caring if he cheats on a business trip. (Yes, of course his *wife* cares.) And we stopped caring a LONG time ago about fornication.

(I'm too libertarian to see any difference if someone is paying for adultery or fornication or getting it for free.)

Are you saying that SS guards can't sleep with their own wives in their hotel rooms the day before they have to guard the president? Can they not entertain their own children?

Um, nice straw man you attempted there re: "the children"

Anyway, you have a different definition of "off duty" than reality does.

See, being part of the Secret Service advance team staying at the same hotel the President will stay at in a foreign country isn't really being "off duty" just because it is dark and you want to cavort with hookers in seedy dance clubs.

the winners I'm referring to are the SS agents, last I looked they didn run any social safety net programs

You are still talking about government officials. You think the screening for those that run social saftey net programs are any tighter than for the Secret Service? If you do you are kidding yourself. Screening for secret service agents is far more stringent than the equivalent government official at all the social saftey net programs. Remember this: the post office is one of the best run government agencies. While these arent' federally run, the DMV is typically run better than other government agencies.

As far as Obama goes, he's not one of my favorite people, but I won't engage in this charade of blaming anyone's administration or the federal government on some horney SS agents, gone drinking and whoring.

Of course it's the administration's fault for these horny SS agents. Do you think that the administration doens't pick the agents used to protect their man? Of course they do. Do you think that all key members of the Obama administration didn't know what these agents were doing? You'd be kidding yourself again. This type of behavior takes place behind the opaque information structure the government has set in place to hide these types of actions. This reduces accountability, the very purpose behind all the obfuscations, despite being tax payer funded.

I'll state again: this type of corruption and incompetence is rampant throughout all of government. It's reported on many times every day. And here you are quadrupling down on stupid, claiming the typical corruption and incompetence in the news can't possibly apply to agency XXX (whatever your favorite agency happens to be). But of course it does.

Garage: Cute watching wingers pretend they care about the security detail that is protecting Obama.

My concern is the issue of security and what could possibly have been jeopardized by virtue of this kind of behavior. So I find it interesting that the Lefties are defending behavior that could result in POTUS being blown up, regardless of his party affiliation.

Please remember, I am Ken, not Cedarford. I haven't read his comments and we haven't talked about them, so why even bring this up?

Why would the black lesbian SS agent that used to guard Michelle blow the whistle on these "hand picked by Obama's administration" ?

Who knows? Did you ever think that she may actually have some morals or, you know, even takes her job seriously? Or do black lesbians think it's okay that other secret service agents break the law using prostitution? And do black lesbians think it's okay to bring hookers to security areas where the president would be within 48 hours? Do black lesbians just not care about professionalism and doing their jobs well? Maybe she thinks that taxpayers have the right to when well paid public employees break the law and break security protocol, endangering all sorts of things, including the president's life.

Was this black lesbian SS agent mad at the Obama administration?

Because the first thing on a black lesbians mind is politics, not the professional level of her fellow agents, right?

I honestly don't know what people I don't know and never have met think, but I do know that embarrassing an administration politically is only one of a thousand other easily thought of reasons.

Ken I brought it up because both you and Cedarford are engaging In conjecture, using conspiracy theories to make your point.

You don't know for a fact that that "key members of the Obama administration" knew this was going on, as Cedarford doesn't really know the black SS agent blew the whistle on Whoregate, perhaps what Cedarford or even you assert will be proven as a fact as time goes on, in the meantime it's nothing more than hot air.

You don't know for a fact that that "key members of the Obama administration" knew this was going on

Ha! From the woman who claimed that it happened under Bush too without any evidence whatsoever.

Key members of Obama's administration had to have known about this because it was occurring in secure spaces, i.e., where key members of Obama's administration were. Are you saying that the key members of Obama's administration are so incompetent that they cannot tell when unauthorized personnel are in secure spaces? You do know that key members of Obama's administration have to coordinate and work closely to the Secret Service and their agents, right?

This isn't conspiracy theory at all. I can very much believe that the key members of Obama's administration didn't say anything because they knew what a political embarrassment it would turned out to be.